Thanks for the summary. You make some good points.
You’re welcome.
I mean, even disposing of the body....every different one tells a different story. I think this was a spur-of-the-moment crime and various and sundry assholes joined in if the opportunity arose. Which is why the original ones who confessed didn’t at first implicate the others....because there was no benefit in it to name other accomplices and hey, I’m betting none of those guys knew who was there and who wasn’t.
Now you take a chaotic scene like that and later, as was done with the NY Times and the original confessors, you, boom, take what is now known about the crime, such as no DNA found on the victim, an odd thing I admit. But point being NOW these confessors know what the police have and all the time in the world to sit and change their story to match the facts that they didn’t know then.
The big sticking point for me is that they all confessed. Why on earth would anyone confess to a crime like this? Because they’re not very intelligent thugs and because they did it.